"

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

HYDRAULIC MODEL STUDIES OF THE INLET

TRANSITION AT RADAR PUMPING PLANT,

COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT, WASHINGTON

Report No. Hyd-547

Hydraulics Branch DIVISION OF RESEARCH

OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER DENVER, COLORADO

April 7, 1965

The information contained in this report may not be used in any publication, advertising, or other promotion in such a manner as to constitute an endorsement by the United States Government or the Bureau of Reclamation, either explicit or implicit, of any material, product, device, or process that may be referred to in the report.

..

-·

CONTENTS

Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

Purpose . _. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 The Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 The Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

The Angled Transition, Preliminary Design . . . . . . . . . . 3 The Symmetrical Transition, Recommended Design 3

Location Map Location Plan ....................................... . Surface Flow Patterns in the Angled Transition ......... . Configuration of Recommended Guide Walls for the

Angled Transition .................................. . Inlet Transition Plan and Sections (Recommended

De sign) ........................................... . Surface Flow Patterns in the Symmetrical Transition .... .

i

Figure

1 2 3

4

5 6

ABSTRACT

Limited model tests were performed to compare the hydraulic

characteristics of an angled transition with the characteristics of

a symmetrical transition, and to determine the configuration of

appurtenances required to improve the flow distribution in the

angled transition. The appearance of flow patterns in the tran­

sitions indicated that the symmetrical transition was better than

the angled transition. The angled transition was made to operate

satisfactorily by the addition of curved guide walls near the up­

stream end of the transition. The symmetrical transition was

recommended for installation. No attempt was made to measure

head loss or velocity distribution in the transitions.

Hyd-547 King, D. L. HYDRAULIC MODEL STUDIES OF THE INLET TRANSITION AT

RADAR PUMPING PLANT, COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT,

WASHINGTON Laboratory Report, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, 3 p, 6 fig,

1 ref, 1965

DESCRIPTORS--*canals/ *pumping plants// ,:<transitions/ struc­

tures// *hydraulic models/ canal design/ eddies/ research and

development/ flow control/ symmetry/ model tests/ laboratory

tests/ hydraulics/ velocity distribution/ shapes/ ,:<inlets/ flumes/

sedimentation/ dyes

IDENTIFIERS--Radar Pumping Plant/ Columbia Basin Project/

Washington/ flow patterns/ symmetrical transitions/ angled

transitions/ hydraulic characteristics/ guide walls/

ii

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

Office of Chief Engineer Division of Research Hydraulics Branch Denver, Colorado April 7, 1965

Report No. Hyd-547 Author: D. L. King Checked by: T. J. Rhone Reviewed by: W. E. Wagner Submitted by: H. M. Martin

HYDRAULIC MODEL STUDIES OF THE INLET TRANSITION AT RADAR PUMPING PLANT, COL UM BIA BASIN. PROJECT.

WASHINGTON .

PURPOSE

The study was conducted to compare the hydraulic characteristics of an angled transition with the characteristics of a symmetrical tran­sition, and to determine the configuration of appurtenances required to improve the flow distribution in the angled transition.

CONCLUSIONS

1. Surface flow patterns indicated that the flow at the pump intake· was better distributed with the symmetrical transition than with the angled transition. Flow patterns in the angled transition were im­proved by the addition of curved guide walls near the upstream end of the transition.

2. The symmetrical transition was recommended for use iri the prototype structure. ·

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The study described in this report was accomplished through cooper­ation between the Canals Branch, Division of Design, aQd the Hy­draulics Branch, Division of.Research. Photography was by W. M. Batts. Office Services Branch. ·

INTRODUCTION

Radar Pumping Plant is a feature of the Wahluke Branch Canal system, Columbia Basin Project, Washington. The plant is .located in southern Washington near Othello, Figure 1. The subject transition connects a 15-foot-wide rectangular bench flume to the 9-unit pumping plant (Units 1 and 2 were located in a single bay). Figure 2. (Figure 2 shows

the preliminary angled transition. ) The mo~el test discharge sim­ulated a prototype discharge of 426 cubic feet per second at a flow­depth of 6. 9 feet in the flume. The particular conditions of pumping plant location and bench flume alinement which resulted in an asym­metrical configuration of the transition were determined by founda- · tion conditions and other factors. Although a more direct approach to the plant would have been desirable, the hill side ori the left bank (see Figure 2) made this plan economically impractical.

Other model studies!/ have shown that an angled transition can re­sult in nonuniform velocity distribution in the transition with large areas of reverse current. Such nonuniformity results in incre_ased head loss and unequal distribution of flow to the pump intakes, with accompanying reduction in pump efficiency. Also, the eddy currents allow deposition of sediment and trapping of surface debris. How­ever, in the cited study, 1/ these conditions were not severe and an angled transition was selected because of economic· considerations.

THE MODEL

The 1:18 scale model originally included approximately a 120-foot length of the bench flume, the angled transition of Figure 2, and the eight pump intake bays. The model was later modified to in­clude a symmetrical transition with a short curved approach flume.

The transition and bench flume were fabricated from wood and the pump intakes were simulated by sheet metal slide gates. As the study was of a limited general nature, the downstream end of the model trahsition did not identically simulate the prototype tran­sition. The floor was horizontal as compared with a sloping prototype floor. Dividing piers were installed to simulate flow conditions at the entrances to the pump intake sumps, and the pump sumps were not modeled. These discrepancies between model and prototype configurations are insignificant and should have little effect on the conclusions drawn from the model tests.

Water was suppli.ed to the model through a recirculating system and the fl.ow rate was measured by a volumetrically calibrated ven­turi meter.

THE INVESTIGATION

Only limited tests were made on the transition to the Radar Pump­ing Plant. The performance of the transition designs and the effects

1 / "Hydraulic Model Studies of the Canal Transition at the Fore bay Pumping Plant, San Luis Unit, Central Valley Project, Califor:ilia,11 by D. L. King. Hydraulics Branch Report No. Hyd-542, 1965."

2

of appurtenances were evaluated on the basis of the appearance of the water surface flow patterns and the movement of dye streams on the transition floor. No attempt was made to measure head loss or velocity distribution in the small model.

The Angled Transition, Preliminary Design

The original design of the transition consisted of a straight approach flume alinement and an angled transition as shown in Figure 2. The left wall diverged approximately 85° and the right wall diverged about 5°. The transition width changed from 15 to 126. 5 feet in a length of approximately 90 feet .

The model demonstrated a strong rotational circulation in the tran­sition, Figure 3A. The high velocity flow in front of Units 2 through 5 (as demonstrated by the length of the flow lines) caused small vor­tices to trail off the dividing piers. Bay 8 showed a strong rotation within the intake bay, Figure 3 A.

Curved guide walls were placed in the upstream portion of the tran­sition to provide better flow distribution. The guide walls broke up the strong rotational circulation into smaller, slow-moving eddies, Figure 3B, and flow distribution to the intakes was more uniform.

The configuration of the recommended guide walls, developed through a series of trials, is shown in Figure 4. The left wall was 3 feet 9 inches high; the right wall was 4 feet 6 inches high. The simulated thickness of both walls was approximately 8 inches. Dur­ing operation at design depth, both walls were beneath the water surface.

The Symmetrical Transition, Recommended Design

The angled transition was replaced by a symmetrical transition with a short curved approach flume, Figure 5. The alinement of the straight portion of the flume upstream from Station 1+56. 51, the P. C. of the curve, remained the same as shown in Figure 2. The model included the curve and approximately 90 feet of straight flume upstream from the curve.

Flow conditions in the symmetrical transition were very good. Two large, slow-moving eddies moved counterclockwise on the left side of the transition and clockwise on the right side, Figure 6. The eddy on the left side was larger, due to the influence of the curved approach channel upstream of the expanding section. Flow distribution at the pump sump intakes was fairly uniform.

Generally, the flow appearance and distribution in the symmetrical transition were better than those observed during operation of the modified angled transition (with guide walls); therefore, the symmet­rical transition was recommended for use in the prototype structure.

3

• I

'

~

"

,/

'

"'

~ q: tu c.)

0

(.) ..... Lt. ..... ~

<:t Cl..

//

-+-

~

{b

/

~

"

'l,

,, .. /

"-/ / ·, 'l,

' " ' / ,'b / " / ..c\

/ ,.,,,,,

', '· '·

/ / ""'// / ... / ' ,, "" '·,, ,' " ,"> " /

FIGURE 1 REPORT HYD-547

/

.., .. '"'" ,/

/. '" 'l, /" {I.,

'X./ ',"' // ,.,,0, 2· ,o " / ..,.~v .,., / ~

'°" >( X" ~ ,,.. ,, ~c, ,.0

/

" ... / c,· ,,<;>- '\ <fol

' / " / ~. <b--.:- +~ ', ~ ~. *-~ ..,_'I, -.>,

',, ,, / ,, >< 7 \, '" // "" t -Q~~~o£~ '°"

~ )"< /

'l,'l,

r_-, (a,.,,: ~

,.,,1.· ~-, - ~

O)"' /

,fl "~-- / ' ~<,, " '\ ~~' /, ,· "' 'l,t,

/

,<.:> 'V ·;, ~'" o· -?'-" c,

/

)(C?>~,;,- ~

'l,..., ' cf) / q,<o O ' .. ~

~ C., IC / ,, ,.O cf> ~'

/ 'I,; 'bf> /-<.. <;>-. 0 ~ " ~ / ,o /,0 -<..i;,-· "'>.,,,,(.,~v ,, / '\_ ..... ~ I 0 ,,

/ c., / ' ..._..,.,(.,'*"' v i:,~ / .. , '-.fJ~~ ~, 'l,,rc ,~~,<::J. 'j· H< /- : ~-"'-.

EAST ._ ... -~

re-\

i, r, m\ wl ~, "i\

'l, ~\

', / '\ ·, / \ ' / \

'

~

1.

I>< ~­)(0

<.:>~ o.~

,/'>( WB3--~~,, . ~ --- '

' ~v ,<,_<;>-·oo ~

0 )( '

::i: I I<{

. 0

/ "--~ ' WB3B-- __ ::y """""'-. /,

,p " RADAR PUMPING/ .

PLANT----" ] WB3A-' o

~ ~':x\ ~ap7 "~ ~-

~

~

1,4>

,;,-" <;>-~

X" C,

/ ~c, / ,,_<;>-

/ <o~ *-~

'v'V ~<;>--?'- ,~

/

,,

~

_/, ..,o

~-....... ,.......:J..-.-__ .,..,,.. scoor~N,:-y-:::::: -:::::.--::::-,..~ / ,,. , ~ ;,;, - ,.......,,..., <l -~ ... ,,..~~-:::-, }.-\

/ ~-':>~,-~ ,c..- ~f" .... ,,...,...>-~ -<c-v sf ~L...-

. - .-"'VI~ "--' .......-,.... ,

r6l

• 4)~· ~- ~

-t>

/

'"' 'l,o,

"'C"'"y 1--._-,

~\" 'l,'f,, 't-,_

/

~ .,., '\. ..,,.,, V

/ I O / I / I f f f I I ' •• I l

2 J

/ SCALE 0, MtLQ

,,/ ,, '

,.,,,,,

'

,p ..,,

"

.,

//

""' ~'b

10

)

1000

,,- £ WAHLUK£ BRANCH CANAL

' I

Dike as directed-,

~~r

PLAN

l --PA 3+61i,89° Lt

-!~9t,90°Lt /

~

lo~p._________

1040-----.____

I OS 5 ----------

IOPo...___

d I reeled -------- 10, o...___________

.,, ____ _

""o------.,, _______

•10~

Uo ------•s,

- 940--------------~

~. , ,Y 2p 410 •p ,10

SCALE OF FEET

• ~k.., 7 • \

'

FIGURE 2 REPORT HYD-54 7

I ~

Approx. or,ginol ground surface-. __ ...... -~

Sta. J+J0.22 Loi. \ WB3, Relocated------------ \

Max. w.s. El 96192--:-._._---- --~ l __ Nor. w.s. El. 967.70, \ I

I\ \ •1 r d Min. W.S. El. 967.18, \ I JI I · • , ... ·.-~ . ...:..l.- ,. , ....

---------,-·El. 973.00

,,-·El. 956. 50

Assumed rock line - - •

Approx original ground line-,,

1o' 2}:IJ ,-iMin

:M;n~ ~ _bi--;:~~Dike, Min. h• 18" SECTION I

_i l

4 "Grovel surfacing-~Assumed rock line

El. 972 t-,

6" Compoc ted / bockf1II- --·

Selected

'·-oroinoge ditch

TYPICAL SECTION

Approx. original ground surface- - - _

Meter well (l996/)··:

'-Manifold anchor

10

SECTION 2

•• •• SCALE OF FEET

I SECTIONS)

IO

\...--2{·1

4" Gravel surfacing- .. , -~ 6' Compacted ~i ~:!(If!- -IO'Min.

baclt.f1II • · ,r~

TYPICAL SECTION (DRAINAGE DITCH)

/NO SCALE)

NOTES For general notes and reference drawings see 222-D-19777. For logs of lest holes see 222-D-19953. For topography see 222-11,-2BB99T. For swilchyard see 222-D-19954. For in/el transition see 222-D-21586. Portions of the W83 Lateral, extending into the

pumping plant site, has been performed under another contract. See Specifications.

( 3-5-65. REVISED TLUIIE ANO INt.fT T"ANIITION, ANO ACCE$$ ROAD.

D. n.u.f.l. , I- 11- 85 ltEV. SWITCHYAltO AND MADE OTHElt MINOlt ltEVISION.t.

D - 17t1q 5 - 1----=-ii J REV. s£,r1c TANK,!EWfll AND a,,,.osAt. Flft.D DEt.CTEO.

o. s.r Sff f'lfOJ. IIANAIElfl t.ETTElf OATEO .,.,,,t. .,. ,., •. ID - 14 -SI 1 •EVISEO ACCESS •oAO, AOOEO NOTES AND OTHC• MINOR

Q,_ -- s.r. REVISIONS. I - I - SI f &ENE.AL ftEVISION. ANO AOOITIONI.

o. s.r.

1µu.111 T111n• SAflTY UNIT£0 STATES

OE~AlfT11£NT o, TH£ INT£.101f

.UlfEAU o, lfECLAMATION

COLUM./A .A!JIN ,.lfOJCCT--'IIIIA!JHINfJTON

WAHLUKC BRANCH CANAL LATC1'AL!J-•LOCK61

RADAR PUMPING PLANT LOCATION PLAN

O,.AWN--- __ -r,W,1 ... __ _____ auaMtT"T•O---!j._lj._J_h.!)!Jt.J!~Q.11 __________ _

T"lt,AC•O-- - __ f!.J.:.1'.•_ - - - --- ,..OOMM•Noao- - $_a_~'-!~'--~~d_q_ ---- ------

OH.c,c•o-~:...1-!·~:-~!·_~-- - ___ ,.,.~ltOV.O __ - __ l(_.J),.__ JS~!!Jtt: - - - -- - - ---- --.N,.,. 11.-, •• NI.. .N.11111•••

O•NV.,., OOLO,.,AOO. .JULY aa, 1••7' 222-0-19626

A. , Angled transition, preliminary design. B. Angled transition with curved guide walls.

RADAR PUMPING PLANT INLET TRANSITION

1: 18 Scale Model

Surface Flow Patterns in the Angled Transition

Q = 426 cfs, flow depth = 6. 9 feet

~ 'Ij (t) .... 'O (Jq 0 s:: 'i 'i c-+ (1)

::i:: CJ-'

<-< 0.. I

CJl ~ -J

-""t~ 8" -rn 3'-9'.!..-1

SECTION A-A

->-f t<-8 II 41-6~-,-~ SECTION B-B

,1 I I

I I /1

/::!I- I I II

'<S-;,"'1 ?,.. R = 56 - 0 / _..I,/

,-,:.- - /;f

FIGURE 4 REPORT HYD-547

I I I I

/,. I 1 ' I /1 \ I

Transition Wall-----

I I \ I I I _,;.. /

I 4--o \ / t_ ,' 5o 'I --R =331-0 11 ,,.,.,, \ .........

/ I __ .,..-1-y,-" / 14----- : \

I I I \ I I I \

/ I I \ I I I \

I I I I

I

~-- I I ---- 25' " -o -- .J

Transition Wall------ -- -

--7

RADAR PUMPING PLANT INLET TRANSITION

1:18 SCALE MODEL

Walls

CONFIGURATION OF RECOMMENDED GUIDE WALLS FOR ANGLED TRANSITION

-------------------------------------

Bench Flume, for , details, see 222-0-2158~; ,, ,

,, //

// ,, ,

,,'/

/

_Vr111 1

11Chamfers, ~ i..! 11

" ',, -~ l"(-3 ',,J.)!:, '

'I

'-+-J ,~ Inner face I·!

Type A rubber walerstop,) see 40-0-2867.------

,l' I

TYPICAL JOINT DETAIL For reinforcement size and spacing,

see Plan and Sections.

.,D

~-~:.;= ,{~@~:::;,~ __ !! Ai ./4, ~.::_-it7@5" I

,4:?/ Near face~_-::,.:-.:;,

c::--...-;::: - --Joints-, 1

/K'©''-~6@5" I

/, r --,~~~, ,, ·½~( '-~5@14" Jo 1 ~' f "1/, ·For face

~, 1/ l# " ~\ /2' -5@17 I

>--:t ,.,:};, / ;, ,,-Near face I .,,;,; <:,· ~

{ 6 Sew_ er-pipe dram wit uncemented ' -<1/ / ,,5@10 1 " . . 'h ~{t:/ /~/ --@ ·- " : "'- ,l ,

/

Compacted baclifi/1, -'1 ,,. ,....

bdr J

' I ,1 .... ,.o 14-

_,,'!5@8"

,,--[nd alternate bars at half wall height

--- *6@5" ---\, !

o· -~

*!5@8~' I '

{~5@t4''

f •4@16"-' '

-#4@li~'

SECTION C-C

SCALE

., ' . '

Q -· ~ '

A

joints S• .001 ! connect to drain at ,,, /4~-Joints..:-- 1 outlet structure of Wahluke siphon--,,., /;,. ,,,::/1/ I

~~ fa ,. I , ~" '\.-lo /,/1/ '- __ fs@t3 I

~ ",' ,F /:)'/ ,-Near face I

'¢.' /1/ • r, f 11 c,\o9;:,:. -# 8.. ,, ,,,/ • .-- or ace , 1 X~ (4@1 ,', /;> • .,11

~- ,, I ii II ~ (4@9 °,: \ ,·Far face 11 ,_f!4 @II" \ [

\\•5@5J_:° \ ,,'V / 1 • 11 • 11

\, : '-" I ••@12\ -# ,.' 1 ,-f. 6"Sewer-pipe drain with 11

.. .... _, ., "'

~ \'<,. -!"6@5r'fi;@ #4@9'.'...... .f!4

@7

"~1! ---~•@16 Ii

\~ 6' t~@l8'1 , - I 9 I[

, , , 'Far face I .. , __ ..4@/8 11 uncemented ;oints. 11

\\ , .,.lf°4@9" J ,rSymm. about£ from 2+30.22 .I [ Connect to side drain. Jl : 11": \I 'N fi I, to3t3022 1 , •" IJ, -

1 ,-P.T.2+30.22 11, ear ace , " ® \ · ·, ,. ® 1

---------26-2; ---------22- 11 , .§ 1 i/~ FLOW ®- 1 ----------25-0 -------- -;--------25-0 -------,c 3+30 , I B ' "-

~r'=~--!JI~ ~~~=-,-L ~ ______________ !!,.I ------------- L_ ------------- _..J'._ 0,

,1 '1 !It I ,,f I Ill ',,f I. --- ,71 I I - -- --- ---,cfy-11 •lt ·~ 1 -5·0.--5·0 . ..,....5-CJ.¥5-0-,.,..: ~ , , , 11, 1 I I I _,,jl I E I II: - : ~ir.i ::: I -~ /--"'75-0 I : I I : 1 I : I 11 ; ::, I O N') 0 ... -I l I j I If I I J ' 11 1 I I I I I t I I Q..

l :::: -(\J ~ ~, :::l -: I I : : I I I II t : j I I ..g 1 _, , _, "'11 *5-o ..,..5-o.....,..5-o~-5-0-,.,.5-0

1 , , , ,

1

1 1 , 1

A : .._ I °i' : ~ / -1"1 -1.0 I : I I I I I I I I j l 1 : I I l I 0

~ ~ ' I I /// ~ I ::: I I I I I I I I fj I I ff t j II I I If I j II I 1 : i I I I I l Q::

--==~=~F~~;;;;;;;;;)J!;;;:;'.;;;;;;!;;;::;;;_;~;;;::::-1'~'1 11 /./ -,,:.._ -0 -If\! 1 :::-

1 11 r45-o +t<-5-0 ...,.5-0 ..,..5-0 .,.,...5-0 1 1 1 i I \e : 1

0 F FEET

I I

I

I 0

,

- ~-J~l/ - ) (\,I _<r' ~If\! I _°i' I p_l : : I I 111 j I : : I I j >-~..-/ 1-0 J , : ": ~ -~ ·(\I ~ 11:!.~ : : \ 11 ~-15~d~--s'...o'!.4--5~d~t-5'-0~5'-o~ 1 (, 1

~L - : ; ~ -~: ::r-~ \ : : 11:_: : II \ : I.--:

~ : "'i: 11".' ,' : I 11,-"' : : : : I ~ I

PLAN 10 ,. ,.

SCALE OF FEET

Backfill-.,,

,Re1nf not shown, some , ' as Section C-C. ----- --

-~ :I! ·~

'-- '" i-----8-0 -----' '

SECTION D·D

l---'.

I : i_ l: _, o.,.. '1 i I-,:., : 1 ' 1 I [ : : b "t-.~ ~ _'; ~ 1 \ 7 I i 1

1

'

: I 14/~, ,~ I ~ -1r\l ::. 11 I : I I 2-:,,,f~ /4 ', -I - t:-lf\11 I

~

/I I /~ ' ,~1 "f- lO O _I I I

'

1' /21/1 f.,;;:~ 0 -1 IQ;) I

---•·

backfill.

~.[.i/4)/: 1't~: lO ~ ~: ~~ l/4/ I I ' I I I It') ' - I

I I I: : :::; I 1

1 : :

/

_, "­...

~lr\l

_';"

"' <o

0 _, .... <o I

I I

11 11 II II [I 11

iCil

11 II 11

18"Steel ladder, No.6, / ,, / ' 0

see 40-0-6004----- , ' -' ----1( )(--------- ' I (\,I

------ ~ -

~~~ .. ~ ~

\

.... _,

.... <o

# " ,-----5@14

---:1!6@5"

-..--[nd alternate bars at half wa II height.

:o:,

~ \,-1!.5@14'

SECTION E·E

--~6@5f'

.,-End alternate bars at , half wall height.

FIGURE 5 REPORT HYD-54 7

... 8~

-#4@8'!._ -­

*4@14''-\-

-#6@5~--­

[nd alternate bars at half wall height--------<

...--::-

SECTtON F·F

Backfill-,

,Reinf not shown, l some as Sect ion G-G \

\'\

\

·y , , v-,;-r"'7 - r;rA,,' '',·-Graded gravel bedding, 6"min. thickness-/

-".~'---6'Sewer-pipe drain

SECTION G·G

... ;.o·::._. with uncemented

SECT/ ON H·H joints.

ESTIMATED QUANTITl£S Concrete ______________________ __________ 466 Cu. Yds. Rtinforcem,nt steel_ ___________________ _79,200 Lbs.

NOTES Unless otherwise shown, place reinforce1Mnt so that the clear

distance between face of concr,te and neartst rtinforcem,nt is 1J"for -#5 bars and less, and 2''for #g bars and greater; except provide a clear distance from fact of concrete placed against earth or rack of 2"wh1r1 slab thickness is 9"or less, and 3"where slab thickness is 9r,at,r than,.·

Lap all bars 24 diameters at splices, unless"otherwise shown. Thickness of concrete to vary uniformly betwe,n dimensions

shown. Concrete design based on a compr,ssive strength of :,,ooo ·

pounds per square inch at 28 days. See 222-0-21587 for Stctians A-A, 8-8, J-J, K-K,and L-L. (j) Through (v refers to t ypt of rubber wat,rstop special

intersections. Set 222-0-21588 far d1talls.

T "' S DRAWING SUPElfSEOn tu-o-19HS

ILIIIYI TIIIH SAflTY UNIT£D ITAT£5

D£PAlfTMENT OF THE INT~/flO/f •u1t£AU OF /f£CL.AMATION

COLUAlelA ltASIN ~ROJl!CT- WASH/NII TON

WAHLUKC II/UNCH CANAL LATCllfALS· IILOClt ~I llfADAllf l'UMl'ING l'LANT

INLCT TltANSITION PLAN AND SECTIONS

0"AWN ___ ~·-".:..'!.· __ ___ •u•_,,,.,. •• ___ /ttl _[A~~----

OtrNVEllf, COLOIIAOO, ,.. ••. e, , ••• •Htr•T I Ofr •

Q = 426 cfs, flow depth = 6. 9 feet

RADAR PUMPING PLANT INLET TRANSITION

1: 18 Scale Model

Surface Flow Patterns in the Symmetrical Transition

Figure 6 Report Hyd-547

7-1750 (10-64)

CONVERSION FACTORS-BRITISH TO METRIC UNITS OF MEASUIIEMENT

The following conversion factors adopted ey the Bureau of Reclamation are those published ey the Amel'ican Sociev far Testing and Materials (AS'l.14 Metric Practice Guide, .Tan111117 1964) except that additional factara (*) camnonly used in the Bureau have been added, Further discussion of definitions of quantities and IIIlita is given on pages 10-11 of the ASTMMetric Practice Guide,

The metric unite and conversion factars adopted ey the ASTM are baaed on the "International System of Unite" (designated SI far Systems Intermtional d 1Unites), fixed ey the International Committee far Weights and MeaBUres; this s,ystem ia also knOim as the Giargi ar Ml!SA (meter-kilogram (maaa)-second-empere) s,ystem. Thia s,ystem bee been adopted ey the International Organization far standardization in ISO Recamnendation R-;31,

The metric technical unit of farce is the kilogram-farce; this is the farce which, when applied to a bocl;y having a mass of 1 kg, gives it an acceleration of 9,80665 IJl/aeo/aec, the standard acceleration of free fall toward the earth's center far sea level at 45 deg latitude, The metric unit of force in SI unite ia the newton (N), which is defined aa that farce which, when applied to a bocl;y having a mesa of 1 kg, gives it an acceleration of 1 IJl/seo/sec, These units must be distinguished from the (inconstant) local weight of a bocl;y having a maaa of 1 kg; that ia, the weight of a bocl;y is that force with which a bocl;y is attracted to the earth and ia equal to the mass of a bocl;y multiplied ey the acceleration dus to graviizy', However, because it ia general practice to use "p011Ild" rather than the technically carrect term "p011Ild-force," the term "kilogram" (ar derived mass unit) hes been used in this guide instead of "kilogram­force" in expressing the conversion factara far farces. The newton unit of farce will find increasing use, and is essential in SI units,

~ QIJANTITIFB AND UNITS OF SPACE

lmlti~ !!z To obtain

LENGTH

Mil •• 2, .4 c exact'.cy > • • Micron IDChea 25,4 (exact:cy) •• • Millimeters

2. 54 ( exact:cy )* • , Centimeters Feet. 30,48 (exact:cy) •.• • Centimeters

0,3048 (exact'.cy)* •• • Meters 0 ,0003048 ( exaot:cy )* • • Kilometers

Yards, ••••• o. 9144 ( exact:cy) • • Meters Ml.lea (statute) 1,609,344 (exact'.cy)* , • Meters

l.609~ (exact~2 • Kilometers

A.Rn

Square inches. 6,4516 (exact:cy) • • Square centimeters Square £set. • 929.03 (exact:cy)*, • • Square centimeters

0,092903 (exact:cy) • Square meters Square:,arda 0.836127 • • Square meters Acres •••• 0.4()4691S - • Hectares

4,046.9* ••• • Square meters 0 .0040469* • Square kilometers

Scluare ml.lea 2.58999 •• • !19.uare kilometers

'VOLllMI!:

Cubic inches 16,3871 ••• • Cubic centimeters Cubic feet • 0.028)168 • • Cubic meters Cubic nrda. 0.764555 •• • Cubic meters

CAPACITY

nuid OUDCea (U.S.) 29.5737 •• • Cubic centimeters 29.5729 •• • Milliliters

Liquid pints (U.S.) 0,473179. , Cubic decimeters 0,473166. • Liters

Querta (u.s.). 9,463.58 ••• • Cubic centimeters

Gal.lcms ( u .s _j 0.946358. • Liters

3,785,43* •• • Cubic centimeters 3.78543 • • Cubic decimeters 3.78533 ••• • Liters 0,00378543*, , Cubic meters

Gallons (U ,IC.) 4,54609 • Cubic decimeters 4,54596 , Liters

Cubic feet • 28.3160. • Liters Cubic :,arda 764.55* • Liters Acre-feet. • 1,233,5* , Cubic 1111tters

• 1,233,500* • Liters

llul ti&

Grains (it'7,000 lb) •• , Trqy OIDlC88 (4110 grains). Ounces (avdp) • • • • Pounds ( a'Vd:p) • • • , Sl1ort tons (2,000 lb)

Long tons (2,240 lb)

Pounds per squsrs iDch

Pounds per square foot

Ounces per cubic inch • • , Pounds per cubic t'oot • • •

Tana {J.ang) per cubic jIBd •

Ounces per gallcm (U .s.) . OUnoes per gallcm (U .K.). Pounds per gallan (U.S.~. Pounds per gallon (U .K, •

Inch-pounds

Foot-pounds

Foot-pounds per iDch Ounc_e-:lnches

Feet per seccmd

Feet per year • loll.lea per hour

feet....m,sec_Q!ld.2

!l.

64.'19891 ( -~>. . n.103, ••••••• 28.349' , , ••••• 0.4'3'9237 (exactly)

907.J.S, •••• • 0. 907185 • • • .l,OJ.6.05 • , , , •

~AREA

o.rnom .•. 0.689476 • , • 4.88243 •••

47.8803 •

MASS/VOLIIM! (D!NSITI)

l.'72999 • 16.018, • ·• -0.016018, ].~

MASS/CAPACITI

7.4893 ••••• 6.2362 •••••

119.829 ••••• 99.719 •••••

BENDING lllMENT OR TORQJE

~:~x"lo6" 0.1382" • , • 1.3,582 X 107 ,,4431 ••••

72.008 • I • •

~ITI 30.48 (exao~) • ,

o.3048 c-~~­o • 96,873 X 10 • 1.609344 (exact~) 0 144704 (exactly)

ACCELl!RATION!t O.'.l048*, • •

FU1II CUbic feet per second ( second-

feet) •••••••• , ••• 0,028317*. 0.4719 •• 0~

CUbic feet per ml.nute • • Qsllons (U ,S.) per ml.nuts

~

QIIAIITITil!S AND UNITS OF Ml!CHAIIICS

To obtain

• W.lllgrsma • G1'811l8 • Grams • Kilograms • Kilograms • M,tric tons • Kilograme

• Kilograms per square centimeter • Newtons per square centimeter • Kilograms per square meter • Newtons per sguare meter

, Grams per cubic centimeter • Kilograms per cubic meter

Grams per cubic centimeter Grams per cubic centimetar

• Grams per liter • Grams per liter • Grams per liter • Grams per li'tl!,r

• Meter-ld.lograms • Centimeter-cl;ynea • Meter-ld.lograms • Centimeter~& • Centimeter-ld.lograms per centimeter • Gram-centimeters

• Centimeters per seccmd • Meters per aeccmd • Centimeters per aeccmd • Kilometers per hour • Meters per aeccmd

• Meters per seccmd"l.

• CUbia 111ters per aeccmd • Liters per second • Liters per second

Multi~ 117

IIORCI*

PC11111ds 0 .4'3'92* , , , 4.4482* •••• 4 ,4482 X 10-'* •

WORK AND INIBOI*

British thermal units (Btu).

Btu per pound.

• 0.2,2* ••••• • 1,0,,.06 ••••••

2.326 (exao~). 1.:2,,582* • • • Foot-pounds.

Horsepower • • Btu per hour • , • • • Foot-P<IUIUla per seccmd

Btu in./br rt2 deg F (k, thsl'lllll ccmductivity)

Btu t't/br rt2 deg F • • • .. Btu/br t't2 deg F ( C, thsl'lllll

. ccnductance) •••• , ••

Deg F hr rt2~ (R; ~~ • rsaistence) • • • • • • , • •

Btu/lb deg F (c, beet capacity), Btu/lb deg F , • • • • • • • • , rt2/br ( thsl'lllll dit'tuaivity)

Clra1na/br rt2 ( water npor trensml.ssion). • , • • •

Perms (pel'1118811Ce). • • • • Perm-iDches (permeability)

Multi& CUbic feet per aqusrs foot per

d81' (seepage) • • • • • • • • Pound-cmd• per aqusrs t'oot

(viscosity) • • • • • , • • • • • Square t'eet per second (viscosity) Fahrenhai<t degrees ( chenge )• • Volta per ml.l ••••••••• Lumem, per square t'oot ( foot-

candlea) Obm-aircular ml.ls per foot Ml.llicuries per cubic foot loll.lliamps per square t'oot Oall0118 per squ8l'8 yard , Pounds per :Inch. • • • • ,

~

74,.700 ••••• 0.293071 ••• 1,3,,~

HEAT TJI.ANS_FJ!I\_

1,442 • 0,1240 • l.488()1t

o.568 4.882

1.761 4.1868 , 1,000- • 0.2581. •• ().09290* •

WATER VAPOR TRAHSMISSIOII_

16.7 • o.6,9 1.67.

~ OTHER ~ITIFll AND !!m'r.S.

.!!Z

304.8* •••

4.8824• , •••• 0.02903* (exao~)

,19 -~-0,03937 ••

10.764 •• 0,001662 ,

3,,3147* , 10.7639* •

4.527219* 0.17858* •

Kilograms Newtons BI!!!.&

To obtain

• Kilogram calories • Joules • Jmles per11'8111 .J~_I!_

, Watts • Watts , Watts

• Milliwatts/am deg C • Kg cal/br m d11g C .Kgaalm./br-iildegC

• Mllliwatta/cm2 deg C • Kg aal/br m2 deg C

• Deg C cm2/ml.lliwatt , J/g deg C 1Eai/i deg C

ec JP.

• Grams/24 hr m2 • Metric perms • Metric perm-c_en_!imeters

To obtain

• Liters per square meter per d81'

• Kilogram second per square lllter • Square meters per second • Celsius or Kelvin degrees (chsllge)* • Kilovol ta per ml.lllilleter

, LU1118118 per square meter • Ohm-square ml.llillltera per lllter • 111.lliouries per cubic meter • 111.lliamps per square lllter • Liters per square lllter • KiJ.ograme per centilllter

GPO 845°237

ABSTRACT

Limited model tests were performed to compare the hydraulic characteristics of an angled transition with the characteristics of a symmetrical transition, and to determine the configuration of appurtenances required to improve the flow distribution in the angled transition. The appearance of flow patterns in the tran­sitions indicated that the symmetrical transition was better than the angled transition. The angled transition was made to operate sati::factorily by the addition of curved guide walls near the up­stream end of the transition. The symmetrical transition was recommended for installation. No attempt was made to measure head loss or velocity distribution in the transitions.

ABSTRACT

Limited model tests were performed to compare the hydraulic characteristics of an angled transition with the characteristics of a symmetrical transition, and to determine the configuration of appurtenances required to improve the flow distribution in the angled transition. The appearance of flow patterns in the tran­sitions indicated that the symmetrical transition was better than the angled transition. The angled transition was made to operate satisfactorily by the addition of curved guide walls near the up­stream end of the transition. The symmetrical transition was recommended for installation. No attempt was made to measure head loss or velocity distribution in the transitions.

ABSTRACT

Limited model tests were performed to compare the hydraulic characteristics of an angled transition with the characteristics of a symmetrical transition, and to determine the configuration of appurtenances required to improve the flow distribution in the angled transition. The appearance of flow patterns in the tran­sitions indicated that the symmetrical transition was better than the angled transition. The angled transition was made to operate satisfactorily by the addition of curved guide walls near the up­stream end of the transition. The symmetrical transition was recommended for installation. No attempt was made to measure head loss or velocity distribution in the transitions.

ABSTRACT

Limited model tests were performed to compare the hydraulic characteristics of an angled transition with the characteristics of a symmetrical transition, and to determine the configuration of appurtenances required to improve the flow distribution in the angled transition. The appearance of flow patterns in the tran­sitions indicated that the symmetrical transition was better than the angled transition. The angled transition was made to operate satisfactorily by the addition of curved guide walls near the up­stream end of the transition. The symmetrical transition was recommended for installation. No attempt was made to measure head loss or velocity distribution in the transitions.

Hyd-547 King, D. L.

.

HYDRAULIC MODEL STUDIES OF THE INLET TRANSITION AT RADAR PUMPING PLANT, COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT, WASHINGTON Laboratory Report, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, 3 p, 6 fig, 1 ref, 1965

DESCRIPTORS--*canals/ *pumping plants// *transitions/ struc­tures// *hydraulic models/ canal design/ eddies/ research and development/ flow control/ symmetry/ model tests/ laboratory tests/ hydraulics/ velocity distribution/ shapes/ *inlets/ flumes/ sedimentation/ dyes

IDENTIFIERS--Radar Pumping Plant/ Columbia Basin Project/ Washington/ flow patterns/ symmetrical transitions/ angled transitions/ hydraulic characteristics/ guide walls/

Hyd-547 King, D. L. HYDRAULIC MODEL STUDIES OF THE INLET TRANSITION AT RADAR PUMPING PLANT, COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT, WASHINGTON Laboratory Report, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, 3 p, 6 fig, 1 ref, 1965

DESCRIPTORS--*canals/ *pumping plants// *transitions/ struc­tures// *hydraulic models/ canal design/ eddies/ research and development/ flow control/ symmetry/ model tests/ laboratory tests/ hydraulics/ velocity distribution/ shapes/ *inlets/ flumes/ sedimentation/ dyes

IDENTIFIERS--Radar Pumping Plant/ Columbia Basin Project/ Washington/ flow patterns/ symmetrical transitions/ angled transitions/ hydraulic characteristics/ guide walls/

'I

I I

Hyd-547 Ki.ng, D. L. HYDRAULIC MODEL STUDIES OF THE INLET TRANSITION AT RADAR PUMPING PLANT, COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT, WASHINGTON Laboratory Report, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver. 3 p, 6 fig, 1 ref, 1965

DESCRIPTORS--*canals/ *pumping plants// *transitions/ struc­tures// *hydraulic models/ canal design/ eddies/ research and development/ flow control/ symmetry/ model tests/ laboratory tests/ hydraulics/ velocity distribution/ shapes/ *inlets/ flumes/ sedimentation/ dyes

IDENTIFIERS--Radar Pumping Plant/ Columbia Basin Project/ Washington/ flow patterns/ symmetrical transitions/ angled transitions/ hydraulic characteristics/ guide walls/

Hyd-547 King, D. L. HYDRAULIC MODEL STUDIES OF THE INLET TRANSITION AT RADAR PUMPING PLANT, COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT, WASHINGTON Laboratory Report, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, 3 p, 6 fig, 1 ref, 1965

DESCRIPTORS--*canals/ ~'pumping plants// ~'transitions/ struc­tures// *hydraulic models/ canal design/ eddies/ research and development/ flow control/ symmetry/ model tests/ laboratory tests/ hydraulics/ velocity distribution/ shapes/ *inlets/ flumes/ sedimentation/ dyes

IDENTIFIERS--Radar Pumping Plant/ Columbia Basin Project/ Washington/ flow patterns/ symmetrical transitions/ angled transitions/ hydraulic characteristics/ guide walls/